• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Father kills man sexually abusing his daughter, thoughts?

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
GundamW said:
I wish I have a kid. It's the perfect murder weapon.

Ooo, you accidentally touched my daughter! You are dead.
Ooo, why are you looking at my daughter? You are dead.
Ooo, how could you say my daughter's name wrong? You are dead.
Ooo, I don't like you. Even though my daughter is not with me. I am sure you are going to do something to her. You are dead.

Everyone will side with me because I have a daughter and I was just defending her.

Oh, you have all these evidences against me? What the hell? How could you protect this child molester? Are you one too? I think you are. It's my gut-feeling that you are.

Evidents? Facts? pffff... God is on my side. I am righteous.

I am a dad and I have this pedo-dar that can detect you have ill intention toward me and my daughter . I better act first because dead man can't talk and most people in the jury will hear my sob story and the made up facts that only I and the dead dude know.

You can't convict me! I was just defending my child. Faux News viewers will see my point. They will help me spin the story in my favor. All these "experts" will paint a guilty picture to the accused dead abuser. The viewers will yell so loud that I will get a not-guilt verdict even before the beginning of the trial.

I am white. I am a Christian. I am a Texan. I am INVINCIBLE....
Click to expand...

Or you're just ignorant.

US law does not punish intent alone. There has to be a criminal act or there is no crime.

The fact that you have to bring "Faux News" and Christianity into this discussion reveal your prejudices, as well.
 
GundamW said:
I wish I have a kid. It's the perfect murder weapon.

Ooo, you accidentally touched my daughter! You are dead.
Ooo, why are you looking at my daughter? You are dead.
Ooo, how could you say my daughter's name wrong? You are dead.
Ooo, I don't like you. Even though my daughter is not with me. I am sure you are going to do something to her. You are dead.

Everyone will side with me because I have a daughter and I was just defending her.

Oh, you have all these evidences against me? What the hell? How could you protect this child molester? Are you one too? I think you are. It's my gut-feeling that you are.

Evidents? Facts? pffff... God is on my side. I am righteous.

I am a dad and I have this pedo-dar that can detect you have ill intention toward me and my daughter . I better act first because dead man can't talk and most people in the jury will hear my sob story and the made up facts that only I and the dead dude know.

You can't convict me! I was just defending my child. Faux News viewers will see my point. They will help me spin the story in my favor. All these "experts" will paint a guilty picture to the accused dead abuser. The viewers will yell so loud that I will get a not-guilt verdict even before the beginning of the trial.

I am white. I am a Christian. I am a Texan. I am INVINCIBLE....
Click to expand...
I'm sure you could have worked in tipping, guns and Hitler if you tried harder.
 
This guy is a hero....no way he gets charged. In Texas, protecting his 4 year old daughter....yup...NO WAY HE GETS CHARGED.
 
spidey07 said:
The law is VERY much on the side of the father. He can lawfully use whatever force necessary to stop the rape/threat and prevent him from being a threat. That it occurred in his own home is just icing on the cake as far as the law is concerned. Won't make it past a grand jury, if he's even charged at all.
Click to expand...

1. I was talking in more general terms.
2. The amount of force necessary to stop a rape/threat depends on the circumstances. If the man was knocked unconscious, and then he was kicked in the head 10 more times, that was not be a reasonable amount of force.
 
Corporate Thug said:
1. I was talking in more general terms.
2. The amount of force necessary to stop a rape/threat depends on the circumstances. If the man was knocked unconscious, and then he was kicked in the head 10 more times, that was not be a reasonable amount of force.
Click to expand...
well he is dead
that is the reasonable amount of force needed
 
bignateyk said:
Debatable...:hmm:
Click to expand...

Ok, take the daughter out of the equation. Person breaks into your house, and you knock him out from behind. He is unconscious on the floor. Is beating him to death while he is unconscious reasonable? Another hypothetical: you are attacked on the street. You land a punch and knock your attacker out. Is it reasonable to proceed to stomp his head into the ground?

The point is that in hand to hand combat scenarios, the threat is usually neutralized well before having to resort to deadly force (the details are very scant in this case so I'm not necessarily saying it was that that was the case here). Any more force applied after the threat is neutralized is not reasonable.
 
Can't see the DA even filling charges given what we've been told, and if he does no jury there would convict.
 
Corporate Thug said:
Ok, take the daughter out of the equation. Person breaks into your house, and you knock him out from behind. He is unconscious on the floor. Is beating him to death while he is unconscious reasonable? Another hypothetical: you are attacked on the street. You land a punch and knock your attacker out. Is it reasonable to proceed to stomp his head into the ground?

The point is that in hand to hand combat scenarios, the threat is usually neutralized well before having to resort to deadly force (the details are very scant in this case so I'm not necessarily saying it was that that was the case here). Any more force applied after the threat is neutralized is not reasonable.
Click to expand...

I see what you're saying, and you are correct.

But it's not hard to imagine the father repeatedly hitting him in the head with every ounce of strength he has until he's no longer a threat by ANY means. That would usually mean unconscious or on the ground and not getting up.

And all that would be perfectly legal.
 
GrumpyMan said:
It was just on the news again. Apparently the dad heard his daughter screaming behind his barn. When he got there the 53 year old molester had taken the little girls underwear off and was molesting her as she was screaming. The father is 23 and the guy was a horse handler that had worked for him before.
Click to expand...

Eesh. I definitely find no fault with the father then
 
Corporate Thug said:
Ok, take the daughter out of the equation. Person breaks into your house, and you knock him out from behind. He is unconscious on the floor. Is beating him to death while he is unconscious reasonable? Another hypothetical: you are attacked on the street. You land a punch and knock your attacker out. Is it reasonable to proceed to stomp his head into the ground?

The point is that in hand to hand combat scenarios, the threat is usually neutralized well before having to resort to deadly force (the details are very scant in this case so I'm not necessarily saying it was that that was the case here). Any more force applied after the threat is neutralized is not reasonable.
Click to expand...


The fact is that humans are emotional creatures.


There is a huge difference between someone having words and getting into a fist fight, or seeing a burglar in your home compared to walking in on a family member being raped.

I can easily imagine adrenaline and etc taking over, IE a 'blind rage'.
 
Corporate Thug said:
Ok, take the daughter out of the equation. Person breaks into your house, and you knock him out from behind. He is unconscious on the floor. Is beating him to death while he is unconscious reasonable? Another hypothetical: you are attacked on the street. You land a punch and knock your attacker out. Is it reasonable to proceed to stomp his head into the ground?
Click to expand...

About the only similarities those have to this case is that they involve people and fights. Surely you are not trying to equate a B&E with child molestation?

There will be different levels of what people consider 'reasonable force' and I think most people will admit then when they see their child endangered they will lose a lot of conscious thought other than 'Protect my child'. This type of situation clearly triggers a hardwired response to use violence as the fastest and most direct method to remove the threat. I know I sure as hell wouldn't be able to rationally think "Hey - I've hit him twice. Is that enough? Have I gone too far or is he still a threat?"
 
Exterous said:
About the only similarities those have to this case is that they involve people and fights. Surely you are not trying to equate a B&E with child molestation?

There will be different levels of what people consider 'reasonable force' and I think most people will admit then when they see their child endangered they will lose a lot of conscious thought other than 'Protect my child'. This type of situation clearly triggers a hardwired response to use violence as the fastest and most direct method to remove the threat. I know I sure as hell wouldn't be able to rationally think "Hey - I've hit him twice. Is that enough? Have I gone too far or is he still a threat?"
Click to expand...

Let me give you an extreme example: If I shoot a robber in the stomach and he is passed out on the ground, then I walk up to him and put a bullet in his head, the head shot is not reasonable force because clearly he was neutralized with the shot to the stomach. If I saw the robber molesting my child and put a bullet into his stomach, then I walked over an put another in his head, again, the second shot is not reasonable force because the threat was already neutralized.

I prefaced my entire comment by saying I'm not making it about this story in particular because there are so few facts. All I'm saying that the "any amount of force is reasonable if you are touching my kid" argument just isn't the law.

This situation also comes up a lot in battered women syndrome cases.
 
waggy said:
neither have any new info.

though the first has a poll

2% say it was a crime
95% say the guy did the right thing
2% say not sure

lol
Click to expand...

"The children's grandfather said the boy later came back and said his sister had been taken away by a man. Her father then went out to look for her, the grandfather said.
The father found both his daughter and the 47-year-old man partially naked, investigators said."


That's new.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top